guess I should address you orginal requirement. you would link to preference from party or login with either Pary or user type. So add the preference ID to party. then have a preference Item with one to many to preference
BJ Freeman sent the following on 9/29/2011 4:54 AM: > #3. rename to Preferences with a TypeID added. > However use the logniID to find the Preference with the type Party. > since we now have the login tied to the partryID already. > > > Hans Bakker sent the following on 9/29/2011 3:11 AM: >> Thanks BJ for the comment. >> >> In order to keep the framework (login preference) and party preference >> separated i would like to suggest to either: >> >> 1. extend the UserPreference entity and adding the field partyId to the >> key, override the related services and make the PartyId mandatory. >> 2. copy the UserPreference and call it PartyPreference and replace the >> userLogin with the partyId and create similar services in the party >> component. >> >> anybody any comments? >> >> Regards, >> Hans >> >> On Mon, 2011-09-26 at 21:24 -0700, BJ Freeman wrote: >>> I can see the case for both >>> I have taken the approach to start with partyrelations.rollup.roles (not >>> as defined by ofbiz, but the datamodel book) that a userloginId has, >>> against the PartyID info available. >>> that is a lot more detailed than I think you looking for. >>> >>> >>> Hans Bakker sent the following on 9/26/2011 7:12 PM: >>>> Currently we have a userLoginId preference. What is fine for preferences >>>> in screens etc. >>>> >>>> However we would would like to have preferences on a party level, like >>>> email notification preferences. This is rather difficult at the moment >>>> because if you specify these at the userLogin level and there are 5 >>>> userlogins for a user what to do? If you only know the partyId? >>>> >>>> System messages or orders are an example, there only partyId is known >>>> and not the specific userloginId. We would also like to send >>>> notifications when an email comes is, where also only partyId is known. >>>> >>>> Any opinions here? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> Hans >>>> >>>> >>>> >> >
